Roker v. Gertz Long Island
| Decision Date | 20 April 1970 |
| Citation | 34 A.D.2d 680,310 N.Y.S.2d 536 |
| Parties | Denise ROKER, Respondent, v. GERTZ LONG ISLAND et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Julius S. Christensen, Christensen, Caliendo & Crowley, New York City, for respondent.
Warren G. Kraft, New York City, for appellants; Williamm P. Kennedy, New York City, of counsel.
Before CHRIST, P.J., and HOPKINS, KLEINFELD, BRENNAN and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a false imprisonment action, defendants appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 11, 1969, in favor of plaintiff, upon a jury verdict.
Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Plaintiff, shopping in defendant Gertz Department Store was being observed by defendant store detectives, Callahan and Crowe. They watched plaintiff enter a fitting room with three pairs of slacks, and walk out of such room empty-handed. Defendant Callahan testified that she immediately searched the fitting room and found only two pairs of pants; whereupon Callahan, and Crowe, who was following plaintiff stopped plaintiff in the street and accused her of stealing the third pair of pants.
Plaintiff said that upon returning to the store and in front of Callahan, she lifted her dress and pulled down her girdle to show that she did not take the pants. Callahan said that plaintiff voluntarily lifted her dress, but it proved nothing as plaintiff could have hidden the pants in her girdle. At Callahan's request, the police arrested plaintiff; and only at the police station, in front of Callahan and a police matron, did plaintiff remove her dress and girdle. The pants were not found and after a four to five hour detention the charges were dropped and plaintiff was released.
The Trial Justice charged the jury,
In our opinion, the court erred when it, in effect, directed a verdict in plaintiff's favor.
Under Section 218 of the General Business Law when the proprietor of a retail mercantile establishment, his agents or employees, have reasonable grounds for suspecting a person of having in his possession unpurchased merchandise of such establishment, such person may be detained in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time for the purpose of making an investigation to ascertain the ownership of the merchandise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacques v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc.
...as a defense to civil false arrest suits' (Id., at p. 380, 292 N.Y.S.2d at p. 876, 239 N.E.2d at p. 627). In Roker v. Gertz Long Island, 34 A.D.2d 680, 310 N.Y.S.2d 536, the court held that where the plaintiff was arrested and taken to the police station as part of a continuing investigatio......
-
Nelson v. Times Square Stores Corp.
...(see General Business Law § 218; Jacques v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 30 N.Y.2d 466, 334 N.Y.S.2d 632, 285 N.E.2d 871; Roker v. Gertz L.I., 34 A.D.2d 680, 310 N.Y.S.2d 536; Tota v. Alexander's, 63 Misc.2d 908, 314 N.Y.S.2d 93, affd. 38 A.D.2d 892, 330 N.Y.S.2d 295; Ann., False Imprisonment--Sho......
-
Jacques v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
...person may be detained in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time for the purpose of making an investigation' (Roker v. Gertz Long Island, 34 A.D.2d 680, 310 N.Y.S.2d 536). Plaintiff selected several items of merchandise in defendant Sears Roebuck & Company's (Sears') self service store. ......
- Rubin v. Grossman